ingest

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already signal readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and destructive=false. The description adds useful operational context: ingestion runs asynchronously in the daemon host and manual calls are for backfill or catching up after a long absence. It does not contradict the annotations, though it could disclose more about duplicate-ingestion consequences given the non-idempotent hint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then supplies the operational context and manual-call conditions. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter optional tool with an output schema and annotations present, the description covers purpose, normal operational behavior, and when manual invocation is appropriate. The only meaningful gap is the unexplained max_msgs parameter, which keeps it from being fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one parameter, max_msgs, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. While the parameter name and default value give some hint, the description adds no guidance on what max_msgs means, how it affects ingestion, or whether backfill scenarios should adjust it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Ingest new transcripts.' It also distinguishes this tool from the automatic daemon-driven pipeline, and the sibling list contains no similarly named ingestion tool, so an agent can tell what this tool is for.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly explains that initial and periodic passes run asynchronously in the daemon host, and that manual invocation is intended for backfill or after a long absence. This gives the agent clear conditions for choosing manual invocation over relying on the automated pipeline.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.